disenchantedbunny.

     This blog is not coincidentally about religion and the media. I was originally majoring in both Media Studies and Philosophy before my philosophical urges won out and I realised that I would have to drop media if I wished to achieve more in philosophy. While media was more enjoyable, philosophy was more rewarding. When I decided to put all my efforts into philosophy I started this blog to keep up my role as an active consumer of media.

     The methodology that I try to work within is that of semiotics. Semiotics or semiology is merely the study of signs, or the manner in which we infer meaning from actions or objects, sounds or ideas. At the heart of semiotics is the assumption that there can be different readings of the same object by different subjects and meaning is not inherently contained; meaning is socially constructed, whether through conscious decision or ideological causation or a mixture both. Sitting in front of the television can invoke a multitude of responses from acceptance, disgust, indifference, etc. So I try to be cautious in saying that particular line in song x objectively means a particular thing.

      Of course, while readings and meaning may be ambiguous, certain readings are going to be more plausible than others. So picking out different parts of a Futurama episode relevant to reading x makes it more plausible that x will be the meaning taken from a majority of viewers. A cross does not necessarily signify Christ but in the context of a horror movie it would be more plausibly connoted than in a documentary about ninjas. Meanings develop in complex webs, and it is our job as active consumers to analyse the webs of meaning being sold to us.

      I’m not interested in merely showing the assumptions made. People “suspend disbelief” all the time to involve themselves in fantasy and escapism and quite often have no trouble telling the difference between reality and fiction. Media texts rarely offer us analytical arguments, but premises are often signified and conclusions assumed. What I’m attempting to do here is to extend on what the texts signify and then critically assess the philosophy behind it.

      For example: a couple of posts back I noted a particularly faith-friendly Futurama episode. A viewer could let their imagination run wild while watching and think ‘Bender is talking to God’ (reading a). There are assumptions here that need to be analysed. For example, what reasons does the show in its entirety give to argue that this being is really representing the theistic god? There are generally arguments floating around the text somewhere to detail this reasoning. Cumulative aspects of a text will generally signify one particular argumentative direction if the text is aiming to be coherent. Sceptics like me may imagine the same scene in a different way: it will be more like “what reasons does Bender have to think that he is talking to a theistic god?” (reading b). In reading b one can identify the reasoning connoted by the text that lead people to accepting reading a. I argue that the show is trying to signify things entailed in reading a, yet does not succeed in presenting an argument that this state of affairs could happen in reality.

Just a little detour from my original ranting. Sorry for any inconvenience!